I think you're maybe overly focused on the "compile time type checker" bit of static typing. The contract definition bit is secondary, but useful. It's also at

I think you're maybe overly focused on the "compile time type checker" bit of static typing. The contract definition bit is secondary, but useful. It's also at least somewhat separable from the type checking. The best example I can think of is to compare the duck typing that is common in many dynamic languages with the formal interfaces that are more popular in static languages. With duck typing, you basically look for a method with a particular name in an object, and then, having found it, simply assume that that method is going to implement the semantics you expect. That works surprisingly often, but it is a bit rough-and-ready for many people's tastes. With formal interfaces, you have a clearer indication from the type's author that they're consciously planning on implementing a specific set of semantics. They could still be doing it wrong, of course, but it's at least trying to be more meticulous about things. I also think it's worth pointing out that static typing can be useful as a performance thing. Pushing all those type checks into run-time does have costs. There's the extra branch instructions involved in doing all those type checks at run time, and there's the extra memory consumption involved in carrying around that type information at run time. (It's also true that this aspect is very much a continuum, especially with regards to the performance considerations: Many dynamic languages have JIT compilers that can statically analyze the code and treat it as if it were statically typed at run time, and any ostensibly static language that allows downcasting or reflection supplies those features by carrying type information and allowing for type checks at run time.)